Section 21 No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

1 Jeopardy does not attach: Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: 1) FIRST JEOPARDY MUST ATTACHED PRIOR TO THE SECOND Charge is fatally defective in form a) upon a valid information or indictment Substance of the info does not allege sufficient (1) complaint (2) information facts to constitute an offense Note: both substance and form must be valid: Court that takes cognizance of the case is (1) substance when the complain adequately informed without jurisdiction the accused of the nature and cause of the accusations which means that: -crime charged is outside the ambit of the 1.1 the essential facts are alleged courts powers 1.2 the legal description of the offense is alleged -crime was committed outside the 1.3 in ordinary and concise language jurisdiction of the court (2) form Note: if defective, the remedy is to quash the information In a preliminary investigation-only probable b) there must be a competent court with jurisdiction to hear and cause is determined decide the case (geographical proper place; and jurisdictional has jurisdiction over the crime aspects) Note: if filed in improper court, remedy is dismissal c) After arraignment without this, the court has no jurisdiction over the body of the accused d) After a valid plea there must be no withdrawal of original plea. (1) the accused must know enough about the cause and nature of the offense charged against him/her (2) if the guilty plea is entered, the court cannot summarily convict the accused on the basis of evidence to prove mitigating circumstance, to do so would deprive the state of due process first jeopardy does not attach. e)defendant must be acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed without the express consent of the accused. 2) FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE TERMINATED- implies trial on merits Exceptions to Dismissal (Jeopardy a) upon acquittal-case is terminated upon the merits of the issue does not attach) (1) failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt (2) erroneous judgment that has attained finality 1. Dismissal is made without due (3) dismissed on prescription process (4) dismissal was due to violation 2. Dismissal is upon defendants own o the defendants right to speedy trial motion (5)dismissal upon the instance of the accused and on the ground that the information was insufficient to sustain a conviction-amounts to an acquittal 3. Dismissal made with express (6) the discharge of an accused in order to make him a state witness, even if consent-constitutes as waiver of it be erroneous. If he refuses to testify against his co-accused, no DJ. DJ Note: Acquittal, the case was decided based on merits but the prosecution was not able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Dismissal is based on Exception: (Jeopardy attaches) the allegation of the courts jurisdiction, or any other ground that does not accused invoked the right to decide the merits of the issue. speedy trial b) Final Conviction (1) appeal period expires case is dismissed for (2) service of sentence has been totally or partially served insufficiency of evidence (3) express waiver in writing - desistance of complainant (4) applied for probation c) dismissal-case is terminated other than upon the merits thereof - demurrer or insufficiency of -must be final. Written and signed by the judge. (1) court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the territory -because the court has reached the erroneous conclusion after presentation of evidence, although not necessarily after the consideration of evidence (2)without consent of the accused (3)dismissal due to prosecutions failure to appear-amount to an acquittal
3) SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE a) offense is identical with the other-elements of the crime are the same b) when it is an attempt or frustration of the other c) when it is necessarily included in the first offense or when it includes the first offense d) subject to the doctrine of supervening fact/event

st

4) SAME ACT- when one act give rise to two separate offenses, punishable by law AND ordinance - If an act is punishable by a law and ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall be a bar to the prosecution for the same act -The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put to jeopardy for the same offense. Appeals When an accused appeals his conviction, he waives his right to plea of double jeopardy. The protection against second jeopardy does not only means that an accused cannot be prosecuted a second time for the same offense but also that the prosecution cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal rendered within a courts jurisdiction, even if erroneous, ends the case finally. Provided, that the judge considered the evidence, even of his appreciation of the evidence leading to acquittal is erroneous, an appeal or motion for reconsideration by the prosecution will not be allowed. Nor will the prosecution be allowed to appeal a judgment of conviction in order to obtain a modification of penalty when the penalty imposed is lighter than what is legally demandable.

Jeopardy can be invoked (1) Case for the same offense, after termination is re-filed (2) Appeal of judgment of conviction/acquittal

FIRST JEOPARDY ATTACHES A. UPON A VALID INFORMATION Pua Yi Kun vs People The court nevertheless rejected petitioners claim of being placed in second jeopardy reasoning that, as it is necessary to aver in an information for theft that the owner of the stolen property did not give his consent to its taking by the accused, then the correct identity of the owner is essential to the validity of the information. And, since admittedly, there was an erroneous naming of the supposed offended party in the first information, that information was defective and cases did not constitute a first jeopardy to the accused. People vs Manaba Defendant was charged with rape prior to the effectivity of the RPC. It was crime against chastity in which only the complainant may file a complaint. The first complaint filed against the defendant was signed and sworn to by the chief of police of Dumaguete. As it was not the complaint of the offended party, it was not a valid complaint in accordance with the law. The judgment of the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the defendant was never in jeopardy. Lasoy vs Zenerosa The information charging accused of possession of 42.4 grams instead of 42.4 kilos of marijuana is valid considering that is sufficiently alleges the manner by which the crime was committed. It bears repeating that the accused had been arraigned and convicted under the information. Granting that the alteration took place and the accused had a hand in it, this does not justify the setting aside of the decision. The tampering allegedly participated in by the accused may well be the subject of another inquiry. The information even if tampered is valid as long as all the elements of the crime are present. 1 st jeopardy attaches. Cudia vs CA The petitioner committed an offense in Mabalacat, Pampanga. Information was filed by the City Prosecutor of Angeles City. The provincial prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an information charging petitioner for same offense. NO DJ. (1) Branch 60 of RTC of Angeles, Pampanga does not have jurisdiction over the case. (2) The information was invalid. The City Prosecutor of Angeles Pampanga had no authority to file the first information, the offense having been committed in the municipality of Mabalacat, which is beyond jurisdiction. B. COMPETENT COURT WITH JURISIDCTION Binay vs Sandiganbayan Mayor Magsaysay was charged with violations of RA3019, with the RTC of Batangas. The trial to be conducted by Sandiganbayan will not expose the petitioners who are accused therein to double jeopardy eventhough they had already pleaded not guilty to the information being filed in the RTC. The first jeopardy never attached in the first place, RTC not being a court of competent jurisdiction. There can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in a court that had no jurisdiction. Zapatos vs People Accused was charged in Sandiganbayan and RTC. The acts of petitioner were committed in relation to his office. The previous dismissal of his cases by the RTC could not result to double jeopardy. While petitioner had already pleaded not guilty before the RTC, jeopardy did not attach as it did not acquire jurisdiction. There can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in court that had no jurisdiction. C.AFTER ARRAIGNMENT Galvez vs CA The 2 accused were charged with the homicide and 2 counts of frustrated homicide. Before the accused could be arraigned in the criminal cases, the prosecutor filed a Ex Parts Motion to Withdraw Informations in said cases. On the same day, he filed four new informations against herein petitioners for murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and violation of PD. 1866 for illegal posssesion of firearms. First jeopardy has not yet attached as petitioners were yet to be arraigned. The ex parte motion to withdraw was filed and granted before they could be arraigned. Flores vs Joven- Dismissal before arraignment, 1st jeopardy does not attach. Navarro and other accused were charged with rape.Navarro was not one of theose identified by petitioner to have abused her but he was not released from detention while other criminal cases were still pending. Nvarros other co-accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges against them while Navarro escaped. 1st jeopardy does not attach because Navarro has not been arraigned to the related case subject for certiorari. He had not been arraigned for he jumped bail. Vincoy vs CA- Dismissal during a preliminary investigation, no DJ. PI is not part of trial. The dismissal of a similar complaint for estafa filed by Cimafranca before the City Prosecutors Office of Pasay City will not exculpate Vincoy. That case cannot bar Vincoys prosecution. It is settled that the dismissal of a case during its preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not part of the trial and is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof. D. AFTER A VALID PLEA People vs Balisacan The accused upon being arraigned, entered a plea of guilty. At his cousel de officios petition, he was allowed to prove mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. He was acquitted. Prosecution appealed. The appeal does not place the accused in double jeopardy. double jeopardy. In the present case, it is true, the accused had first entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course of being allowed to prove mitigating circumstances, that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony, therefore as the court a quo recognized in its decision had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new on the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. It follows that in effect there having been no standing plea at the time the court a quo rendered its judgment of acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein.

Sec 14 Rights of the accused (others) Right to confront and meet witnesses 1. To allow the accused to cross-examine (to test the accuracy of the evidence against the accused) 2. For the judge to determine the demeanor or appearance of witness Note: failure to cross-examine, violation of the right of the accused Trial in absentia Requisites: 1. The accused had been arraigned- informed of the charge against him 2. The accused had been notified of the proceedings.- sent notice at his last known address 3. His failure to appear on trial is justified- failed to show despite notice Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witness 1. Right to call the witness- testimonial evidence The requisites for compelling the attendance of witnesses are as follows: (a) that the evidence is really material; (b) that he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining the production of such evidence; (c) that the evidence will be available at the time desired; and (d) that no similar evidence could be obtained. Right to call for production of evidence- documentary 2. FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE TERMINATED People vs Bulaong Accused contends that rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is a lesser cognate offense to that defined in Section 4 of Republic Act 1700. And he further contends that since the facts alleged in the informations for rebellion and subversion are the same he cannot be legally prosecuted for both offenses without being placed twice in jeopardy of being punished for the same acts. Accused's contention has no merit. Under Section 9, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the defense of double jeopardy is available to the accused only where he was either convicted or acquitted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent. Such is not the situation in this case. For accused has not been convicted or acquitted in the case filed in the CFI against him for subversion. Neither was the said case dismissed or terminated without his consent, for as stated, it is still pending in said court. Needless to say, it is the conviction, acquittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. ACQUITTAL People vs Laggui However, although its decision is erroneous, that decision may not be annulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment of acquittal. It became final and executory upon its promulgation. The State may not appeal that decision for it would place the accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for the offense in violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy. People vs Velasco Galvez was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence but a petition for certiorari to review the case was prayed. It bears repeating that where acquittal is concerned, the rules do not distinguish whether it occurs at the level of the trial court or on appeal from a judgment of conviction. This firmly establishes the finality-of-acquittal rule in our jurisdiction. Therefore, as mandated by our Constitution, statutes and cognate jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals. Argel vs Pascua This is an administrative complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law filed by Miguel Argel against Judge Herminia M. Pascua. Complainant alleged that Judge Pascua convicted him of murder notwithstanding the fact that he had already been previously acquitted by respondent. Respondent Judge alleged that she rendered the judgment of acquittal dated 22 July 1993 because she erroneously thought that there was no witness who positively identified the accused, herein complainant, as the perpetrator of the crime. Her mistake was brought about by the fact that the testimony of the eyewitness was not attached to the records at the time she wrote her decision. However, when she re-read her notes after her attention was called by the lawyer of the private complainant that there was such an eyewitness, respondent confirmed that there was indeed one. Hence she "revised" her previous decision and rendered the Decision dated 19 August 1993 finding the accused guilty of murder. Whether the right against double jeopardy of the complainant was violated? In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for correction or amendment] except in the cases already mentioned nor withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since the inherent power of a court to modify its order or decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. Complainant herein was already acquitted of murder by respondent and the decision became final and immutable on the same day. Respondent should have known that she could no longer "revise" her decision of acquittal without violating not only an elementary rule of procedure but also the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. DISMISSAL DISMISSAL WITHOUT EXPRESS CONSENT- Jeopardy attaches Tupaz vs Ulep An accused is placed in double jeopardy if he is again tried for an offense for which he has been convicted, acquitted or in another manner in which the indictment against him was dismissed without his consent. In the instant case, there was a valid complaint filed against petitioner to which she pleaded not guilty. The court dismissed the case at the instance of the prosecution, without asking for accused-petitioners consent. This consent cannot be implied or presumed. Such consent must be expressed as to have no doubt as to the accuseds conformity. As petitioners consent was not expressly given, the dismissal of the case must be regarded as final and with prejudice to the re-filing of the case. People vs Ylagan The accused was arraigned for serious physical injuries and he pleaded guilty. After arraignment, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the case. The accused was not able to say anything. 11 days later, the prosecutor filed the case for the same offense. The accused invoked double jeopardy because the dismissal was without his consent. However, the SolGen opposed his argument saying that the dismissal was with his consent. The interpretation of the SolGen for without consent is over the objection or against his will. In the case at bar, the accused did not object. He just kept quiet.

Mere silence is not consent. The Rules of Court provide that the dismissal should be without the express consent of the accused in order to cause double jeopardy. Silence is not express consent and double jeopardy will lie if the case is refilled. People vs Vergara Express consent has been defined as that which is directly given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. This is hardly what private respondents gave. What they did was merely to move for reinvestigation of the case before the prosecutor. To equate this with express consent of the accused to the dismissal of the case in the lower court is to strain the meaning of "express consent" too far. Simply, there was no express consent of the accused when the prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the original Informations. DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT- No Double Jeopardy Dimayacyac vs CA charged with falsification, was initially quashed. After 2 years, another information was filed from the same. No double jeopardy. Legal jeopardy attached only upon valid indictment, before a competent court, after arraignment, a valid pela having been entered, case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. An accused, who fails to object prior to arraignment to a duplicitous info, may be found guilty of any or all of the crimes alleged tehrin and of the first case was upon the motion of petitioner. The dismissal had been affected at his own instance. DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT BUT INVOKED THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - Jeopardy attaches Salcedo vs Mendoza The SC held that dismissal grounded on Speedy Trial, even if upon motion of the accused, or even if with his consent, will give rise to double jeopardy. Dismissal of a criminal case predicated on the Right to a Speedy Trial amounts to acquittal on the merits which bars subsequent prosecution of the accused for the same offense. DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT BUT BECAUSE OF INSUFFICENCY OF EVIDENCE - Jeopardy attaches People vs City It is true that the criminal case of falsification was dismissed on motion of the accused; however, this was a motion filed after the prosecution had rested its case, calling for an appreciation of the evidence adduced and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. In the case of the herein respondents, however, the dismissal of the charge against them was one on the merits of the case which is to be distinguished from other dismissals at the instance of the accused. All the elements of double jeopardy are here present, to wit: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged, (2) a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) an unconditional dismissal of the complaint after the prosecution had rested its case, amounting to the acquittal of the accused. The dismissal being one on the merits, the doctrine of waiver of the accused to a plea of double jeopardy cannot be invoked. People vs Vera Case was dismissed but the other witnesses subsequently appeared after the dismissal. Prosecution filed a motion to set aside the order. There are however two occasions when double jeopardy will attach even if the motion to dismiss the case is made by the accused himself. The first is when the ground is insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution, and the second is when the proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the right to a speedy trial. DISMISSAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS- Jeopardy does not attach Gorion vs RTC- dismissal through inadvertence or mistake The erroneous dismissal order of 28 September 1990 was then issued capriciously and arbitrarily; it unquestionably deprived the State of a fair opportunity to present and prove its case. Thus, its right to due process was violated. The said order is null and void and hence, cannot be pleaded by the petitioner to bar the subsequent annulment of the dismissal order or a re-opening of the case on the ground of double jeopardy. This is the rule obtaining in this jurisdiction. Serino vs Zosa-purely capricious dismissal The prosecution was ready to enter into trial, as the transcript of the proceedings herein-above quoted reveals. Both the Assistant Provincial Fiscal and the private prosecutor were readily available, having merely stepped out of the courtroom when the Judge announced that he would first finish the trial of another case. What prompted the Judge to dismiss the case, as stated by him in his subsequent order of reconsideration, was, that "when (he) asked for the prosecution panel to come to court for trial, he was told to wait for them," and that he considered the same an "assault on the dignity of the court." A purely capricious dismissal of an information as herein involved, moreover, deprives the State of fair opportunity to prosecute and convict. It denies the prosecution its day in court. Accordingly, it is a dismissal without due process and, therefore, null and void. A dismissal invalid for lack of a fundamental requisite, such as due process, will not constitute a proper basis for the claim of double jeopardy. People vs Bellaflor- dismissal without valid justification The accused was charged with arson and was convicted by the trial court. After conviction, he filed a motion for reconsideration. The judge reversed his decision and the court stated that the motion for reconsideration is granted, the prior decision is set aside, and the accused is acquitted. No other details were stated. Fiscal filed a centiorari with the SC, questioning the acquittal. Accused invoked double jeopardy. The Court held there is no double jeopardy because the decision of the judge is null and void. It did not comply with the requirement that the decision must state the facts and laws as basis of the decision. The SC also stated that the trial court dismissed the case with the consent of the accused because he was the one who files the motion for reconsideration. State vs Muro- dismissal without notice and hearing CONVICTION It is thus clear that only the accused may ask for a modification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction. And this he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects his appeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of the following ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonably filed by the accused, except in case of automatic review of the decision imposing the capital penalty;

(b) when he has partially or totally served his sentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right to appeal the judgment, except when the death penalty is imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation. When one of these circumstances is present, the trial court which rendered the judgment of conviction loses jurisdiction to alter, modify or revoke it. Potot vs People-express waiver of right to appeal It is an undisputed fact that on February 3, 2000, or three days after the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, petitioner filed a manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal therefrom. His intention not to appeal is further indicated by his prayer in the same manifestation for the immediate issuance of a commitment order so he could serve his sentence. Such waiver has the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable. Finally, we agree with the petitioner that the assailed orders would violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy. Such right prohibits any subsequent prosecution of any person for a crime of which he has previously been acquitted or convicted. The objective is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter be subjected to the peril and anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense. Palu-ay vs CA-applied for probation Accused was charged with frustrated homicide and later amended to frustrated murder but found guilty of physical injuries. Accused filed for probation which was granted. Offended party, the petitioner, filed a case for annulment of decision but was dismissed. Indeed, the question raised by the petition for annulment of judgment is a factual question that cannot be reviewed not only because the decision of the trial court is now final but also because a review of such question at the instance of the prosecution would violate the right of the accused against being placed in double jeopardy of punishment for the same act.

People vs CA & Maquiling A denial of due process likewise results in a loss or lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, no double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason, or when there is lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard. The mere fact that a court erroneously decides a case does not necessarily deprive it of jurisdiction. Thus, assuming arguendo that a court commits a mistake in its judgment, the error does not vitiate the decision, considering that it has jurisdiction over the case. An examination of the 65-page Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals shows no patent or gross error amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Neither does it show an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power arising from passion or hostility. The facts together with various inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, cast doubt on their credibility and led the appellate court to believe that Casan Maquiling did act in self-defense; hence, his acquittal. People vs Ong The accused was convicted for illegal recruitment and estafa. It is settled that a person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no problem of double jeopardy because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the accused is necessary. APPEAL People vs Leones- appeal after conviction by the prosecution, DJ The accused was charged and convicted by the trial court of three (3) counts of rape and three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness. The accused did not appeal the above decision. However, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal to increase the penalty imposed on the accused. Would the reopening of the case to increase the penalty imposed on the accused violate his right against double jeopardy? Yes. An appeal in a criminal proceeding opens the whole case for review, including the review of the penalty. Where the accused after conviction by the trial court did not appeal his conviction, an appeal by the government seeking to increase the penalty imposed by the trial court places the accused in double jeopardy and should therefore be dismissed. People vs Serrano- appeal after acquittal based on the merits by the prosecution It is elementary that the rule against double jeopardy proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal on the merits. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a re-examination of the merits of such acquittal, even in an appellate court, will put him a second time in jeopardy for the same offense. Although the accused did not object to the appeal interposed by the prosecution, Judge Domael should have known that granting such appeal would constitute double jeopardy. People vs Rondero- appeal by the accused constitutes as waiver, no DJ rape with homicide- charge, convicted with homicide. Appealed his decision Can he be convicted of the original charged? Yes. When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives his right against double jeopardy and throws case open for review of the appellate court, which is then called to render the judgment as the law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable and whether they are the subject of the assigned errors or not. This precept should be borne in mind by every lawyer of an accused who unwittingly taken the risk involved when he decides to appeal a sentence. 3. SAME OFFENSE TEST- One may be charged for the same act if it constitutes at least two different offenses under two statutes or two ordinances as provided by the elements of committing the crime. Conviction or acquittal in one will serve as a bar to prosecution under the other. This does not apply to continuing crimes. -original offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the original complaint or information. DISTINGUISH from INSEPARABLE OFFENSE: where one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds from the same act, they cannot be subjected to separate prosecutions. Example: smoking of opium and possession of opium DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING FACT where after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes, for which the defendant is responsible, which together with the existing facts, changes the character of the offense, such constitutes a new and distinct offense and the accused cannot be said to be in double jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. RATIONALE: the rule of identity of offense does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution for the simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility of convicting the accused during the first prosecution for yet inexistent second offense. Exceptions to same offense: Rule 117 (a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;- (SUPERVENING EVENT DOCTRINE) (b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; (NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT) (c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116. (PLEA BARGAINING WITHOUT CONSENT) In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense. Melo vs People-supervening event Accused was charged for serious physical injuries on Dec. 27 On Dec. 29, he pleaded guilty. A few hours later of the same day, the victim died. On Jan. 4, the fiscal filed a new info, now, already for Homicide. The accused invoked double jeopardy. The Court held there is NO double jeopardy because the 2nd offense was not yet in existence during the 1st prosecution. When he pleaded guilty, the 2nd offense was not yet in existence because the victim died a few hours later. The new offense only came about after the conviction of the accused.

People vs City Court of Manila-supervening event

On Oct. 17, 1972, Diolito dela Cruz figured in an accident. The next day an info for serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence (SPIRI) was filed against private respondent driver of the truck. On Oct. 18, the victim died. On Oct. 20, private respondent was arraigned on the charge of SPIRI; he pleaded guilty. On Oct. 24, an info for homicide thru reckless imprudence (HRI) was filed against private respondent. On Nov. 17 city court of Mla dismissed above info on the ground of double jeopardy. Where the victim of an accident died 2 days prior to the arraignment of the accused who pleaded guilty to an info for SPIRI, he can no longer be charged with HRI as no new fact supervened after the arraignment. Peole vs Saley Conviction for various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar the punishment of the offender for estafa in RPC. One act gives rise to several offenses. No DJ for as long as the elements of the crime are not the same. Merencillo vs People- Direct Bribery and RA3019 Clearly, the violation of 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither identical nor necessarily inclusive of direct bribery. While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. Although the two charges against petitioner stemmed from the same transaction, the same act gave rise to two separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy attached since there was a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy proceeds from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one. Garcia vs Sandiganbayan Forfeiture Cases and the Plunder Case Have Separate Causes of Action; the Former Is Civil in Nature while the Latter Is Criminal. Hence, petitioners thesis on possible double jeopardy entanglements should a judgment of conviction ensue in Crim. Case 28107 collapses entirely. Double jeopardy, as a criminal law concept, refers to jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, suggesting that double jeopardy presupposes two separate criminal prosecutions. Proceedings under RA 1379 are, to repeat, civil in nature. As a necessary corollary, one who is sued under RA 1379 may be proceeded against for a criminal offense. Thus, the filing of a case under that law is not barred by the conviction or acquittal of the defendant in Crim. Case 28107 for plunder. 4. SAME ACT TEST- one act gives rise to two separate offenses, one punishable by law and other by an ordinance- DJ People vs Relova Accused was acquitted for unauthorized wiring connection under an ordinance on account of prescription. Subsequently, accused was charged with theft of electric power under the RPC. Double jeopardy for the same act has attached. He was already acquitted under an ordinance; thus, he may not be charged for theft under the RPC . Diaz vs DLPC While the institution of separate criminal actions under the provisions of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, and under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on theft may refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense because a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses; and where there is variance or difference between the elements of an offense in one law and another law, as in the case at bar, there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited; what is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense.129 Hence, no fault could be attributed to respondent DLPC when it instituted the two separate actions.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

EX POST FACTO LAW one that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed Characteristics: to be ex post facto, the law must: 1. 2. 3. Refer to criminal matters Retroactive in application To the prejudice of the accused

Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may be applied to those arrested prior to the suspension the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to statutes (Montenegro vs Castaneda) Extradition treaties may be applied retroactively to crimes committed prior to the effectivity of the Treaty the prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects the substantial rights of the accused. The Treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedure statute (Wright vs CA) As conceived under our Constitution, ex post facto laws are 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such act was not an offense when committed laws which, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime; statutes which prescribes greater punishment for a crime already committed; laws which alter the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant. laws which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful Laws which deprive a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.

BILL OF ATTAINDER IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT THAT INFLICTS PUNISHMENT WITHOUT TRIAL, ITS ESSENCE BEING THE SUBSTITUTION OF LEGISLATIVE FIAT FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF GUILT